Most recent full copy of Directive on patentability of computer implemented inventions
ciaran at member.fsf.org
Wed Aug 13 22:56:42 UTC 2003
We need a consensus on what amendments to endorse.
There are 14 proposed amendments, the list is available at:
Amendments are marked "AM". Amendments can only be tabled
at JURI meetings and there are no such meetings until Sept
10th, so this is the final list.
In Ireland, we've worked hard on the patents issue. The
response we get is that they know the directive is bad but
they don't want to vote against it, they want to amend it (so
that the process won't have been a complete waste of time and
No matter how hard it is, we have to find a set of
amendments that will make us happy. We then say to our MEPs
"Unless amendments X, Y, and Z are passed, you must vote No".
This gives us a chance to get a good law passed, and it gives
our MEPs a firm reason to vote No if needs be.
Does anyone know of a good/agreed set of amendments?
I'll try to work out a set myself if no one knows. I think
the Greens/EFA drafted an amendment, I'll start by looking for
We must rally around one set of amendments rather than
end up with 4 good amendments each getting a quarter of
Any help or pointers would be very much appreciated.
On Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 11:50:43PM +0200, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
> El Wed, Aug 13, 2003 at 07:22:07PM +0100, Niall Douglas deia:
> > What the MEPs seem to want is in short, succint terms, what
> > amendments should they call for? In my view, patenting the
> > implementation not idea could actually be a good idea and in the
> > worst case scenario, it won't make things really awfully worse.
> What the MEPs want is 2 small amendments that please everyone. That
> is impossible. There are just too many holes in it. Yet it is
> their responsability to fix it. If it takes many amendments then
> that's it. I'm sorry, I didn't write the CEC proposal, so don't blame it.
> The FFII has some amendment proposals. This is not necessarily the
> only way to fix it, but it is very easy to fail in fixing it.
> They have always the option of rejecting the directive, if fixing
> it is too much work.
> > I appreciate your comments on patents plus all the FSF have written
> > about the matter. But it's all useless - you all speak of "software
> > patents" being bad full stop period. A MEP might know that and even
> > agree, but the EU is *mandated* to enforce software patents.
> > Therefore, you are fighting a war which cannot be won.
> This is wrong, to say it politely. Who do you think is mandating
> anything to the EU but itself?.
> > Instead you should accept that the EU *shall* have software patents,
> > and this fight is all about making software patents as least damaging
> > as possible. Therefore you should be proposing alternative forms of
> > software patent ie; not Arlene McCarthy's proposal.
> Software patents are as absurd as saying pi equals 5.6. There is
> nothing you can do to make them less harmful without making them
> worthless to applicants. But we discussed a bit about that some time
> ago, didn't we?.
> > To differentiate, I use "US-style software patent" for anything which
> > patents the idea behind a program. These must be avoided at all
> > costs. I then propose a new and improved form of software patent
> > patenting the implementation, one a MEP can debate for in their
> > plenary session.
> That's probably either meaningless, or more likely worthless for
> patent applicants. The only way for software patents to do that
> is to turn them in a more expensive and less lasting copyright.
> There's a bit about it lost somewhere in
> > You all might be interested that the SME group in the EU parliament
> > is very worried about the proposed directive but their proposed
> > amendments aren't much use. Irish MEP Avril Doyle is on that
> > committee and I am liasing with her wrt to tabling amendments. If the
> > SME committee could come behind these amendments, they have a much
> > louder voice than any one MEP or party.
> Since you don't mind commenting that on a public list, would you
> mind discussing the precise text of the amendments you would like?.
> Is the SME committee an EP committee ? I thought it was some other
> group of MEPs. Anyway, are you aware that one MEP cannot table
> amendments in plenary?.
> Xavi Drudis Ferran
> xdrudis at tinet.org
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion at fsfeurope.org
Irish Free Software Forum:
More information about the Discussion